Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 27, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
1. Claim(s) 15, 18-19, and 22-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podhajny (US 2013/0145652) in view of Chang (US 2014/0245632).
Regarding Claim 15, Podhajny discloses an article of footwear comprising: an upper (130) comprising a knitted component (131; para.44) comprising: a heel portion, a lateral midfoot portion, and a medial midfoot portion (see annotated Figure below); a first knitted tubular structure (i.e. tubular structure around 132 in 1st folding area) integrally knitted with and positioned between the heel portion and the lateral midfoot portion (see annotated Figure below); a second knitted tubular structure (i.e. tubular structure around 132 in 2nd folding area) integrally knitted with and positioned between the heel portion and the medial midfoot portion (see annotated Figure below); and a tensioning element (132) that extends through the first knitted tubular structure and through the second knitted tubular structure (as seen in Fig.2; para.45), wherein the first knitted tubular structure and the second knitted tubular structure each extend from a lower boundary (133) of the heel portion upward along (i.e. beside the end of 135, is “along”, inasmuch as has been claimed by Applicant) a collar (seen at 135) of the upper to a convergence region (see annotated Figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Podhajny does not disclose the tensioning element forms an exposed segment outside of the knitted component. However, Chang teaches a knit upper having a tensioning element (158) that extends through the knitted upper/component (para.41) and forms an exposed segment (one of 159 or one of 160) outside of the knitted component (as seen in Fig.3 & 5; para.82).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have positioned the tensioning element of Podhajny to form an exposed segment outside of the knitted component, as taught by Chang, in order to provide an optimum tensioning configuration that securely fits the upper to a user’s foot and supports a user’s foot when the shoe is being worn.
Regarding Claim 18, Modified Podhajny discloses an article of footwear of claim 15, wherein the exposed segment (of modified Podhajny) of the tensioning element forms a loop (as seen in Fig.3 & 5 of Chang) that extends out of the knitted component at a midpoint position on the collar (i.e. ends of 135 are a midpoint of the collar) where the first knitted tubular structure and the second knitted tubular structure meet at the convergence region (see annotated Figure above & Fig.3 & 5 of Chang).
Regarding Claim 19, Podhajny discloses an article of footwear of claim 15, wherein the first knitted tubular structure (i.e. tubular structure around 132 in 1st folding area) and the second knitted tubular structure (i.e. tubular structure around 132 in 2nd folding area) each extend upward diagonally from the lower boundary of the heel portion, the lower boundary being proximate to a biteline (i.e. line where 130 & 110 meet) located between the upper and a sole structure, and toward a throat region of the upper (as seen in Fig.2, 3 and annotated Figure with Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 22, When in combination, Podhajny and Chang teach an article of footwear of claim 15, wherein the tensioning element forms a single exposed segment (Chang: one of 159) outside of the knitted component (as seen in Fig.3 & 5 of Chang).
Regarding Claim 23, Podhajny discloses an article of footwear of claim 15, wherein the first knitted tubular structure (i.e. tubular structure around 132 in 1st folding area) and the second knitted tubular structure (i.e. tubular structure around 132 in 2nd folding area) each comprise a first knit layer (136,138) and a second knit layer (137,139) that are integrally knit and partially unsecured (i.e. such that 132 can extend between the layers) to define a corresponding channel (para.55; as seen in Fig.7A & 8B), and wherein a single tensioning element (132) extends through the channel of the first knitted tubular structure and through the channel of the second knitted tubular structure (as seen in Fig.7A & 8B).
2. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Podhajny (US 2013/0145652) and Chang (US 2014/0245632), in view of Moudgil (US 11,793,267).
Regarding Claim 20, Podhajny and Chang disclose the invention substantially as claimed above. Podhajny discloses an article of footwear of claim 15, wherein the first knitted tubular structure forms a first folding area and the second knitted tubular structure forms a second folding area (see annotated Figure with Claim 1). Podhajny does not disclose wherein when force is applied to an exterior side of the heel portion, the knitted component is biased to fold at the first folding area and the second folding area between the tensioning element positioned at the first and second tubular structures and the heel portion, so that the heel portion is folded down and extends into a foot-receiving void defined by the upper. However, Moudgil teaches a heel portion (109) wherein when force is applied to an exterior side of the heel portion, the knitted component is biased to fold at a first folding area (i.e. lateral side of 109) and a second folding area (i.e. lateral side of 109), so that the heel portion is folded down and extends into a foot-receiving void defined by the upper (as seen in Fig.1A & 2A; Col.3, line 45-Col.4, line 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heel portion of Podhajny to fold down, as taught by Moudgil, in order to provide a shoe with an easy entry configuration for the user to quickly don a shoe when needed. When in combination, Podhajny and Moudgil teach the knitted component is biased to fold at the first folding area and the second folding area between the tensioning element positioned at the first and second tubular structures and the heel portion,
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11,13-14, and 21 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and newly modified grounds of rejection have been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but, as they are drawn solely to the newly amended limitations, are moot in view of the newly modified ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEGAN E LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-3267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:00am-4:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MEGAN E LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights